It’s alarming, then, that pollinators are under threat from factors including more intense farming, climate change, disease and changing land use, such as urbanisation. Yet recent studies have suggested that urban areas could actually be beneficial, at least for some pollinators, as higher numbers of bee species have been recorded in UK towns and cities, compared with neighbouring farmland.

To find out which parts of towns and cities are better for bees and other pollinators, our research team carried out fieldwork in nine different types of land in four UK cities: Bristol, Reading, Leeds and Edinburgh.

An easy win

Urban areas are a complex mosaic of different land uses and habitats. We surveyed pollinators in allotments (also known as community gardens), cemeteries and churchyards, residential gardens, public parks, other green spaces (such as playing fields), nature reserves, road verges, pavements and man-made surfaces such as car parks or industrial estates.

In the UK, there are waiting lists for allotments in many areas, so local authorities and urban planners need to recognise that creating more allotment sites is a winning move, which will benefit people, pollinators and sustainable food production.

Good tips for green thumbs

We also recorded high numbers of pollinating insects in gardens. Residential gardens made up between a quarter and a third of the total area of the four cities we sampled, so they’re really a crucial habitat for bees and other pollinators in cities. That’s why urban planners and developers need to create new housing developments with gardens.

But it’s not just the quantity of gardens that matters, it’s the quality, too. And there’s a lot that residents can do to ensure their gardens provide a good environment for pollinators.

Rather than paving, decking and neatly mown lawns, gardeners need to be planting flowers, shrubs and bushes that are good for pollinators. Choose plants that have plenty of pollen and nectar that is accessible to pollinators, and aim to have flowers throughout the year to provide a constant supply of food. Our research suggests that borage and lavender are particularly attractive for pollinators.

Often plants and seeds in garden centres are labelled with pollinator logos to help gardeners choose suitable varieties – although a recent study found that that ornamental plants on sale can contain pesticides that are harmful to pollinators, so gardeners should check this with retailers before buying.

Weeds are important too; our results suggest that dandelions, buttercups and brambles are important flowers for pollinators. So create more space for pollinators by mowing less often to allow flowers to grow, and leaving weedy corners, since undisturbed areas make good nesting sites.

An urban refuge

Parks, road verges and other green spaces make up around a third of cities, however our study found that they contain far fewer pollinators than gardens. Our results suggest that increasing the numbers of flowers in these areas, potentially by mowing less often, could have a real benefit for pollinators (and save money). There are already several initiatives underway to encourage local authorities to mow less often.

Ensuring there are healthy populations of pollinators will benefit the native plants and ecosystems in urban areas, as well as anyone who is growing food in their garden or allotment. Towns and cities could act as important refuges for pollinators in the wider landscape, especially since agricultural areas can be limited in terms of the habitat they provide.

It’s crucial for local authorities, urban planners, gardeners and land managers to do their bit to improve the way towns and cities are managed for pollinators. National pollinator strategies already exist for several countries, and local pollinator strategies and action plans are helping to bring together the key stakeholders in cities. Wider adoption of this type of united approach will help to improve towns and cities for both the people and pollinators that live there.

‘Single-use’ was coined 2018’s word of the year – and it’s not hard to see why after we collectively became aware of the devastating impact single-use plastic can have watching the BBC’s Blue Planet II and Drowning in Plastic.

Everybody seems to be discussing the plastic crisis – what the problem is, whose fault it is, what the right thing to do is… the list goes on. There has also been a lot in the media which can cause confusion and apprehension about what you should be doing at home to be as environmentally friendly as possible – fundamentally, for perhaps the first time it’s made us question whether recycling is really worth it after all.

And yet we’re recycling more than ever – twice as much as we did 15 years ago, in fact! So what’s the solution? What can we do about the scourge of plastics – is recycling really the answer?

The most important thing I should stress at this point is that recycling is always the most environmentally friendly way to dispose of your rubbish. By putting something in your general rubbish bin, it’s guaranteed to end up in landfill, or be used for energy from waste; but recycling gives that material the best chance of staying in use and out of the wider environment.

But at WRAP (Recycle Now’s parent organisation) we’re also working ‘behind the scenes’ with the industry and governments to make the recycling system better and simpler. Here’s how:-

What’s being done about the plastics crisis?

This year WRAP launched a world-first initiative, The UK Plastics Pact. The Pact works across the whole industry with Government, supermarkets, businesses, governments, industry and NGOs – from design to disposal – aiming to make plastic pollution a thing of the past. Its aims are to not just increase the recycling of plastics and improve the recycling system, but also to eliminate unnecessary single-use plastic packaging altogether, and increase the amount of recycled material in plastic packaging. A LOT is happening.

88% of us are reporting to have changed how we use plastics after watching Blue Planet II. The supermarkets are seeing the effects of this – Waitrose, for example, have recently reported sales of loose pears to have increased 30 times the rate of bagged, and they expect this trend to continue. But we also need to consider how we can make packaging more sustainable when it does need to be used – and in many cases, it does need to be used to prevent food waste, which is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases and carbon emissions.

One of the targets of The UK Plastics Pact is for all plastic packaging sold by Pact members to be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. Brand and retailer members of the Pact (which between them account for more than 80% of all the packaging we buy daily) are making changes to their packaging, for example by removing or reducing the amount of plastic used, switching to more recyclable plastics and providing re-usable alternatives. Some examples can be found on the WRAP website.

What about compostable plastics – are they the answer?

We are considering opportunities for compostable plastic packaging – while compostable sounds like it will have a minimal on the environment, it has to be disposed in a particular way in order for them to be beneficial and can cause more issues if not dealt with correctly. Our work in this area will help ensure the most sustainable type of plastic is picked for the scenario in which it’s used.

What is Government doing?

The Government has already made some progressive steps to prevent plastic pollution and improve recycling – such as introducing the single use plastic carrier bag charge.

In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor announced a new tax on plastic packaging which doesn’t have a minimum of 30% recycled content (subject to consultation). This will make it more costly for businesses producing plastic to make it from new, non-recycled plastic which is less environmentally friendly.

The Government also published a landmark Resources and Waste Strategy in December. Part of this addresses Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – where businesses that produce a material in turn pay a percentage its recycling costs. This is based on the principle of ‘Polluter Pays’, ensuring that the system works transparently and as best it can, funded by those that produce.

The Strategy is also pushing for more consistency in what’s collected for recycling at kerbside across the country – making it simpler for everyone to understand what should and shouldn’t go in the recycling bin. This is something WRAP has been championing for a while, as it makes recycling easier for everybody and it will ensure more plastic packaging is recycled.

The Government is also outlining plans to make food waste recycling collections available across the country. Reducing the amount of food we waste is important, but when food does need to be thrown away, recycling is the best option.

What’s being done about our recycling going overseas?

WRAP believes we should be recycling more of our plastic waste in the UK; but also to see a better system for our recycling if it does have to be sent abroad. Under The UK Plastics Pact, there is a target to significantly increase recycled content in plastic packaging. This will help drive the UK market for recycling and therefore reducing the amount of material that is exported.

In the Resources and Waste Strategy Government recognises that there are failings in the current system and have pledged to consult on changes, including better controls on materials that are exported for recycling.

The UK is also a member of the Basal Convention, an international treaty originally designed to prevent developed countries sending developing countries hazardous waste. Amendments are proposed that could see mixed plastic packaging waste added to this.

What are local authorities doing?

The number of local authorities that are collecting a wider range of plastics (bottles and pots, tubs and trays) has increased to 79% – that’s up from 18% 10 years ago. Recycling in the UK is on the right path – and I have had many positive individual conversations with the UK recyclers about the future of the UK recycling industry.

At WRAP we have (and continue to) develop and share best practice guidance with local authorities and industry to make recycling easier for everyone.

Remember the Recycling Locator is always there too if you’re not sure what to recycle in your area.

What can we do at home to help?

Remember that taking a tiny amount of time to recycle gives plastic the best chance to be transformed into a new item and out of our environment. Here are my top tips:

Leave lids on plastic bottles – squash the bottle first before replacing the lid

Recycle from the bathroom – remember shampoo and shower gel bottles can be recycled too!

Recycle plastic film at supermarkets – they often have collection points for plastic bags

Give items with food residue a quick rinse

If in doubt, check before you chuck – visit our Recycling Locator to find out what you can recycle where you live

So – is recycling worth it?

I feel passionately about the improving the plastics system and improving the recycling system, and I know that many of you reading this will feel that too. Recycling really does make a difference. We’ve come a long way, and there’s still work to be done – but the recycling system is improving for the better.

Let’s keep up the good work – it is worth it.

Our thanks to Helen Bird and WRAP for permission to republish this blog post, which orginally appeared in Recycle Now

With a recent study indicating that the majority of local authorities have made no provision for Brexit in their medium-term budgets, there is now a real risk for councils if a ‘no deal’ scenario goes ahead after 29 March 2019. So what does a potential black hole in funding mean for local authorities already beleaguered by austerity?

A recent paper from GRANTfinder, the leading authority on grants and funding in the UK, examines this question and why councils need to be preparing now.

The extent to which the public sector is failing to prepare for Brexit is alarming given that local areas were meant to receive over £8bn in EU funding from 2014 to 2020 from sources such as the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, and the UK Government has not yet provided detail on replacement funding streams.

What many people may not be aware of however, is that funding applications under EU schemes can be submitted up until the date that the UK leaves the European Union on 29 March 2019. So, there are still nearly eight months left in which councils and local groups can apply for, and benefit from, EU funding.

The full paper considers how local authorities may best attract funding to their local areas through applying to EU funding whilst the current arrangements still apply, as well as considering alternative funding sources beyond the EU. Usefully, it also identifies key types of local authority projects which commonly attract support.

Although it’s clear that councils are facing considerable financial uncertainty, and many are creating their own risk and Brexit impact assessments as a result, there is still funding support available. Given the short timescale and tight resources within councils however, it makes sense to turn to expert help and tools to identify where funding for local areas and community groups could be sourced. In this respect, GRANTfinder is relied upon by councils across the country to help secure investment.

Read the full guide via the GRANTfinder website. Our GRANTfinder colleagues work across the UK and in Europe to help councils, community groups, businesses and universities to source funding. They also provide training and consultancy in grant application processes and bid writing.

“The role of smart cities is not to create a society of automation and alienation, but to bring communities together”. (Iain Stewart MP)

In June, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smart Cities published a report outlining the findings of its recent inquiry into how the UK Government can support the expansion of smart cities and enable the UK to become a world leader in the field.

It explains that although some people have concerns that smart cities are expensive gimmicks, or even something more sinister, the potential in becoming smarter could have a tremendous impact on the lives of citizens. And ‘smart’, the report makes clear is not just about clever technologies, but any innovative approach or solution that brings together industries or government departments to solve everyday problems.

Included in the report are the number of ways smart approaches can improve city life, such as:

Making cities accessible for all – improving the design process can ensure that people with physical disabilities are not prevented from enjoying the public spaces.

Empowering citizens in democracy – new technologies can give citizens a voice by connecting them with each other, as well as those running services or those making decisions.

Reducing the strain on our health service – providing citizens with access to their own health records can encourage greater responsibility for their own healthcare.

A more efficient, flexible transport system – improving transport information can help citizens plan journeys and smart ticketing options can allow citizens to travel easily between transport services.

Creating a cleaner environment and enhancing air quality – smart technologies can help address environmental challenges, such as improving traffic flow to help limit harmful emissions in congested areas.

If cities are looking for a blueprint to success, there have been numerous smart city initiatives introduced across the world. For example, the report highlights how the Scottish Cities Alliance, a joint initiative between Scotland’s seven cities (Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Perth and Stirling) and the Scottish Government, is encouraging collaboration and the take-up of technologies designed to improve air quality, traffic flow and cut pollution.

There’s also two examples from further afield. Estonia, which is widely recognised as a smart city leader, is viewed as an example of best practice in data sharing. The country provides citizens with control over their data by providing easy access to their education, medical and employment records through an online portal (with the option to request changes). And in Singapore, the “Smart Nation” initiative has become known for its use of a coordinating body to provide leadership to their smart cities agenda.

In concluding the report, The APPG make a series of recommendations to effectively drive forward the smart cities agenda. This includes:

encouraging the promotion of a smart culture;

convening smart standards and data; and

promoting the UK’s smart city expertise overseas.

In particular, a number of interesting points are raised about how to promote a smart culture, from ensuring smart city initiatives focus on the outcomes for citizens to putting collaboration with other cities (and the sharing of best practice) before any form of competition.

Iain Stewart MP, chairman of the APPG on Smart Cities, summarises the report’s main message, as well as calling for the UK Government to create a strategy. He argues:

“A coherent strategy from central government is needed to ensure a joined-up approach between businesses and those who work most closely with and on behalf of their citizens – local government. By fully embracing the smart cities approach, central government can empower local authorities to show ordinary people how smart can positively impact on their everyday lives.”

Follow us on Twitterto see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other smart cities articles.

In December 2017 the Scottish Government passed legislation (Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016) which introduced a raft of measures relating to the private rented sector in Scotland, hoping to tackle issues such as supply, security and tenant rights. One of the headline policies from this piece of legislation was the introduction of Rent Pressure Zones (RPZ’s). The scheme allows local authorities to apply for areas to be designated as Rent Pressure Zones, limiting the ability of private sector landlords in the area to raise rents above a set level. The idea is to use rent control to ensure the market within a particular area remains stable; demand for social housing should not be put under increasing pressure as a result of tenants being priced out of the private rented sector by rising rents.

What’s happened in Ireland?

In the Republic of Ireland, legislation similar to that of Scotland was enacted in 2016. This included measures to introduce RPZ’s to 21 administrative electoral areas, including Dublin and Cork. In these areas, similarly to the Scottish model, landlords can impose a maximum rent increase on existing tenants, but issues with enforcement have proved challenging. One of the major challenges local housing charity workers are reporting is the termination of contracts of existing tenants, so that landlords can bring in new tenants who they would then be able to charge more, because they are exempt from the terms of the RPZ’s.

Local authorities making a good case is vital

As was mentioned earlier, the responsibility of applying to have an area designated as a rent pressure zone falls on local authorities. One of the consistent challenges raised by academics, researchers, and those working elsewhere within the sector is the lack of data, or at least the lack of detailed, robust, quality data on which applications to designate an area and RPZ can be based. It has been suggested that in order to better support local authorities to make good applications, (which are likely to be accepted) the quality and accessibility of data available to local authorities must be addressed.

Supporting local authorities to increase supply of affordable housing is also important in high rent areas to allow all areas of the housing market to function effectively. Driving quality and affordability in one sector, it is hoped will drive up quality and standards in others to give people access to affordable quality homes in areas in which they actually want to live.

But will rent controls work?

Research conducted by academics on behalf of Shelter sought to review the use of rent controls across Europe. It shows a number of different models and how they have been adapted to reflect changes in the market. The term ‘rent regulation’ is commonly applied across Europe to refer to measures which seek to limit ‘in-tenancy’ rent increases, whilst leaving the rents for new tenancies free to find their place within the market. The research highlights the differing fortunes of those who have tried to impose rent controls, through RPZs and other means. Some have found it has had the desired impact, ensuring rent rates remain manageable for people living in an area. However, in addition to the Republic of Ireland, others have found challenges with implementation and enforcement.

Final thoughts

It will take time for this policy to bed in in Scotland, and for local authorities, government and the PRS to fully understand the impact it will have. It may mean that additional legislation may need to be introduced as a regulation method, or that landlords on the whole recognise the wider benefits to them and their sector which increased security can bring. However, the way that this element of the legislation was brought in (many think as a knee- jerk reaction to rising rents in Aberdeen which have now collapsed with the fall in oil prices) has meant that it has not been especially well thought out and the practicalities of its implementation on the ground have not been fully considered. Its long-term impact on the PRS, and on rent in areas more generally will be seen in the coming years. The rest of the UK will be watching intently to see how the Scottish project works. Ultimately, it could be replicated, particularly in large urban centres in England, including London, Manchester and Birmingham.

If you are interested in this topic, you may also be interested in the following blog posts:

In April, the Labour Party launched its strategy for tackling the housing crisis in England. Housing for the Many presents a 50-point plan, with proposals that include:

investing £4bn a year to build one million ‘genuinely’ affordable homes over 10 years

lifting of council borrowing caps

removing the ‘viability loophole’, making it impossible for developers to dodge their affordable housing obligations

zero tolerance of developments without any affordable housing provision

a stricter definition of affordable housing

scrapping the ‘bedroom tax’

suspension of ‘right to buy’

cut-price government loans for housing associations

protected housing benefit for under 21s

consideration of mandatory space requirements

a new generation of garden cities and new towns

Following its publication, analysts in the housing and property sectors gave their thoughts on the strategy.

More affordable homes

The most ambitious proposal is the plan to build 100,000 homes each year.

For Emily Williams, associate director at Savills, this proposal was the most eyecatching:

“The emphasis on investing to deliver more homes to solve the housing crisis, rather than relying on housing benefit to support people who can’t access market housing, is something we have been talking about for a long time.”

However, Savills estimates that the £4bn figure is insufficient for Labour to hit its one million homes target, suggesting that a further £3bn would be needed.

“After Labour’s last 13 years in power from 1997 to 2010, their out-going Chief Secretary to the Treasury famously left a note for his successor: “Sorry, there’s no money”. There is still no magic money tree, and no indication here how these homes are to be funded.”

Developers

Labour’s policy of no development without affordable housing has raised concerns in the property industry. Justin Gaze, head of residential development at Knight Frank told Property Week that the proposals risked deterring developers from undertaking new projects:

“There will be instances where affordable housing cannot be provided, for example on conversions of some buildings where it’s difficult to deliver both open-market and affordable housing side by side.”

The land market

One of the less reported proposals caught the eye of Luke Murphy, IPPR’s associate director for the environment, housing and infrastructure. Writing in CityMetric, Murphy highlighted the proposal to create an English Sovereign Land Trust that would allow local authorities to buy land at cheaper prices to build affordable homes.

“It is here, through intervention in the land market, that the state could have the biggest impact – not to just build more affordable homes, but to make all new homes built more affordable.”

But he argued there was still room for improvement:

“… on land reform, there is scope to be bolder and go further to ensure that affordable housing really is available ‘for the many’, rather than the preserve of the few.

“This makes sense as a measure of affordability, however, this will likely lead to a trade-off between affordability and the numbers of affordable homes delivered, unless capital grants are available at the outset, geared to the income segment to be accommodated.”

RICS also welcomed the plan to lift council housing borrowing caps.

“This is certainly something RICS has been calling for, however appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that local authorities do not expose themselves to too much risk.”

“Of course, abolishing the bedroom tax will help, but tenants’ ability to pay their rent if they are on low incomes is now under assault from the whole range of welfare reforms, of which bedroom tax is only one.”

Final thoughts

The housing crisis has been decades in the making, and there is no quick fix for tackling the problems of housing shortages, affordability and homelessness. Just last month, research by Heriot-Watt University found the chronic shortage of housing in the UK was greater than first thought, amounting to four million homes. To meet the backlog, the researchers estimated that the country needs to build 340,000 homes a year until 2031. This is significantly higher than the targets set both by the Conservative government and the Labour Party.

The new green paper from Labour has presented clear alternatives to the government’s housing policies, and later this year the government is set to publish its own green paper on social housing. The debate will continue, and housing will remain high on the political agenda.

The Knowledge Exchange keeps a close watch on developments in housing. Some of our recent blog posts on the issue include:

Air pollution is a bigger killer in Europe than obesity or alcohol: nearly half a million Europeans die each year from its effects.

Particulate matter (a complex mixture of extremely small dust particles and liquid droplets) and nitrogen dioxide (an invisible, but foul smelling gas) are particularly harmful to health. As the New Scientist has explained:

“…nitrogen dioxide lowers birthweight, stunts lung growth in children and increases the risk of respiratory infections and cardiovascular disease. Particulate pollutants like soot cause a wider range of problems, including lung cancer.”

Motor vehicles are the main source of these emissions in urban areas. For this reason, European Union regulations introduced in 2010 set down that nitrogen oxide should average no more than 40 micrograms per cubic metre over a year. These limits are regularly breached. By the end of January this year, London had reached its legal air pollution limit for the whole of 2018. Scientists say that even these limits are unsafe: the 30,000 deaths each year attributed to particulate pollution are due to exposure levels below the legal limit.

Getting into the zone

Many local authorities have been trying to tackle the issue by getting the most polluting vehicles out of their city centres. As Traffic Technology International has noted:

“From Athens to Aberdeen, and from London to Ljubljana, there is an eclectic smorgasbord of initiatives with over 200 low emission zones (LEZ) around Europe excluding more polluting vehicles, and some cities employing road-user charging to deter vehicles from entering.”

London has adopted especially ambitious goals to clean up the capital’s air. As of October 2017, older vehicles driving in London between 7am and 6pm have needed either to meet the minimum toxic emission standards (Euro 4/IV for both petrol and diesel vehicles and Euro 3 for motorised tricycles and quadricycles) or to pay an extra daily charge of £10.00 (in addition to the £11.50 Congestion Charge).

Air quality campaigners have welcomed this “T Charge”, but not everyone is happy. The Federation of Small Businesses has voiced concern that the charge will have a negative impact on small and micro-businesses that are already struggling with high property, employment and logistics costs. Shaun Bailey, a Conservative member of the Greater London Assembly, has described the T Charge – and the mayor’s plan to bring forward to 2019 the launch of London’s ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) – as “vanity projects” that will have little effect on air quality.

National demands and local plans

London’s T Charge is one way of tackling air pollution, but there are other methods, such as retrofitting bus fleets, improving concessionary travel and supporting cyclists. Some UK cities are already taking action, while in Germany and Belgium, even more radical ideas are being mooted.

Last summer, the UK government set out its plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations. The document made it clear that local authorities have a leading role to play in achieving improvements in air quality.

By the end of this month, local authorities were expected to submit their own initial schemes for tackling the issue, with final plans to be submitted by December. The government promised support for councils, including a £255m Implementation Fund to help them prepare and deliver their plans, and the opportunity to bid for additional money from a Clean Air Fund.

It was hoped that these measures would lower the poisonous emissions. However, last month the High Court ruled that the government’s approach to tackling pollution was not sufficient, and ordered urgent changes. Even if the subsequent plan is accepted, many feel that the only sure way to solve the problem is to eliminate traffic from our cities. Others counter that this will damage the economy.

Overall, there are now around 120,000 battery-powered cars on Britain’s roads, and this is expected to grow to 10m by 2035. From the modest Nissan Leaf, to the futuristic Tesla, the choice of electric vehicles is expanding, and various car manufacturers have announced ambitious plans to develop even more electric vehicles to suit a range of tastes and budgets.

The benefits of moving to electric are clear – as well as lower emissions, they are also cheaper to run– costing less than half as much than petrol-powered equivalents.

While motorway services and petrol stations will soon be required by law to install charge points for electric cars, simply replacing existing fuel pumps with EV chargers will not provide sufficient capacity, as at present, charging an electric car can take anywhere between 30 minutes to a couple of hours. Additional charging stations will have to be incorporated into parking spots – either on the road, at home or in car parks.

The planning system is already taking some practical action to address this. Both planning policy and development management provide important delivery mechanisms.

At the regional level, some policies require planning authorities to incorporate facilities for charging electric vehicles. For example, The London Plan states:

“developments in all parts of London must… ensure that 1 in 5 spaces provide an electrical charging point to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles”.

Several local authorities also use local plan policies to require electric vehicle provision, and others use their development control powers to require developers to provide electric vehicle charging points.

Some authorities have also taken opportunities to broker EV via non-planning routes, for example, the provision of public recharging point provision through grants. One such example – the On-Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme– was set up in 2016, and provides up to 75% of the cost of procuring and installing chargepoints.

As well as increasing the overall number of available charging stations, planners will need to ensure that they are adequately distributed within a city so that there’s always one within reasonable driving range. Specifying EV charging points on new developments runs the risk of a ‘scattergun’ approach, particularly where developments are concentrated in specific areas. Local authorities would do well to adopt a strategic and planned approach to EV provision to ensure adequate coverage. This will be particularly important in rural areas, as electric cars typically have a maximum range of around 150 miles. ’Range anxiety’ is an affliction suffered by many electric car drivers!

While various grants are available for electric car owners to install charging infrastructure at their homes, it is also not yet clear how home EV charging will work in densely populated areas without private parking, such as large blocks of flats. One potential solution may be the use of massive batteries kept in shipping container-style boxes, with up to 50 charging points attached.

There have also been concerns about the ability of the national grid to cope with millions of cars being plugged in to charge every evening. Encouraging drivers to charge ‘smart’ at off-peak times may be the way forward.

EV technology is an area of fast-paced change and addressing the many challenges that it presents will require planners to adopt similarly innovative and forward-thinking solutions. With advances being made on contactless under-road EV charging, it may not be long before electric streets charge our cars on the move. We in the Information Service are excited to see what the future holds, and will be keeping abreast of the latest developments in both policy and practice.

The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

The week before Christmas might not seem an ideal time to be mulling over the minutiae of economic forecasts and the implications of tax changes. But on Monday morning, the Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI) review of last week’s Scottish draft budget attracted a big turnout, and helped make sense of the numbers announced by Scotland’s Finance Secretary, Derek Mackay.

Here are some of the key issues to emerge from yesterday morning’s presentations.

Growth: degrees of pessimism

Last month, the UK Office for Budget Responsibility revised downwards its growth forecast for the UK economy to less than 2%. The FAI, meanwhile, has forecast a slightly lower growth rate for the Scottish economy of between 1% and 1.5%. However, the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) is much more pessimistic, forecasting growth in the Scottish economy of less than 1% up to 2021. If the SFC’s forecast turns out to be accurate, this would mean the longest run of growth below 1% in Scotland for 60 years.

Dr Graeme Roy, director of the FAI, suggested that the SFC’s gloomy outlook is based on the view that the Scottish working-age population is projected to decline over the next decade. In addition, the SFC also believes that the slowdown in productivity, which has been a blight on the Scottish economy since the 2008 financial crisis, will continue.

Income tax rises: reality v perception

Mr Mackay proposed big changes in Scotland’s tax system, with five income tax bands stretching from 19p to 46p. While these measures attracted the biggest headlines for the budget, the FAI believes that most people will see little meaningful impact in their overall tax bill (relative to income). Charlotte Barbour, director of taxation at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, also suggested that the tax changes are unlikely to result in any significant behavioural changes in the way people pay tax in Scotland. And, as has been noted elsewhere, high taxation does not necessarily lead to unsuccessful economies.

However, as the FAI highlighted, perception is important, and if Scotland comes to be seen as the most highly taxed part of the UK, this could have serious implications for business start-ups and inward investment.

Taxation: two systems, multiple implications

Charlotte Barbour also highlighted some of the implications of the tax changes in Scotland that haven’t featured widely in press coverage. How the changes interact with areas such as Gift Aid, pensions, the married couple’s tax allowance, Universal Credit and tax credits will need careful examination in the coming weeks.

Public spending: additional resources, but constrained settlements

The FAI’s David Eiser noted that Mr Mackay was able to meet his government’s commitments to maintain real terms spending on the police and provide £180m for the Attainment Fund. He also announced an additional £400m resource spending on the NHS. But these settlements are constrained in the context of the Scottish Government’s pay policy,

Mr Mackay’s plan offers public sector workers such as nurses, firefighters and teachers earning less than £30,000 pounds a year a 3% pay rise, and those earning more than that a 2% rise. For the NHS alone, this could cost as much as £170m.

In addition, analysis published yesterday by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICE) has estimated that, if local authorities were to match the Scottish Government’s pay policy, this would cost around £150m in 2018-19.

The budget’s impact on poverty

If the growth forecasts are correct, even by 2022 real household incomes in Scotland will be below 2007 levels. Dr Jim McCormick, Associate Director Scotland to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, looked at the Scottish budget in the context of poverty, and suggested that three principles need to be addressed before the budget can be finalised: there are opportunities both to increase participation by minority groups in employment and to improve progression in low-wage sectors, such as hospitality and retail; energy efficiency is one important way of lowering household bills and improving housing quality in the private rented sector; and options such as topping up child tax credits and more generous Council Tax rebates are better at reducing poverty than cutting income tax.

Finalising the budget

As all of the speakers noted, the Scottish draft budget is not a done deal. The minority Scottish National Party government in the Scottish Parliament needs the support of at least one other party to ensure its measures are adopted. The most likely partner is the Scottish Green Party, which has indicated that the budget cannot pass as it stands, but could support the government if an additional £150m is committed to local government.

It took until February this year before the Scottish Government’s 2016 draft budget could be passed. Time will tell whether a budget announced shortly before Christmas 2017 can finally be agreed before Valentine’s Day 2018.

The complete collection of slides presented at the Fraser of Allander Institute’s Scottish budget review are available to download here.

Our blog post on the Fraser of Allander Institute’s review of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s 2017 Autumn Budget is available here.

Representing more than 370 councils in England and Wales, the LGA called on chewing gum manufacturers for more support in tackling the £60m annual cost of removing discarded gum:

“Chewing gum manufacturers must help more with the growing multi-million pound cost to local communities of removing discarded gum, with 99% of the nation’s main shopping streets now spattered.”

A growing market, a costly problem

Chewing gum may be a modern-day product, but its origins go back a long way. The ancient Greeks, Aztecs, Mayans and Chinese all chewed substances made from the extract of plants and trees. But it was the commercial development of chewing gum in the United States in the 1860s that launched an international market that has continued to grow.

Today, sugar-free gum is marketed as a healthy alternative to confectionery and tobacco, with claims of added benefits, such as fresher breath and whiter teeth. Research in 2015 forecast a 32.6% rise in global chewing gum sales to reach $32.63 billion by 2019. Britain’s chewing gum market is seventh in the world.

All of which means that as more gum is being consumed, more is being discarded on city streets. Research by Keep Britain Tidy has found that 99% of main shopping streets and 64% of all roads and pavements are stained by chewing gum. And once a piece of gum hits the ground, it’s likely to remain there. Gum is made from synthetic plastics that don’t biodegrade, so it can only be addressed by costly removal techniques, such as steam cleaning.

As the LGA has pointed out, councils have no legal obligation to clear up gum once it has been flattened onto the ground. Even so, many councils have mounted gum cleaning operations to make the streets more attractive and improve the environment for residents, visitors and businesses. But local authorities find themselves under increasing budgetary pressures, and are keen to find alternative solutions.

Taking action

Established in 2009, Gumdrop Ltd is the first company in the world to recycle and process chewing gum into a range of new compounds that can be used in the rubber and plastics industry.

Its eye-catching receptacles (also called Gumdrops), are made from recycled chewing gum, and placed in public places for the collection of gum that would otherwise litter the streets. Once full, Gumdrops and their contents are recycled and processed to make new Gumdrops.

The company has been working with public and private organisations to install their receptacles in railway stations, shopping centres, airports and universities, and has also formed links with chewing gum manufacturers. In partnership with Cardiff Council and Keep Wales Tidy, Gumdrop joined forces with The Wrigley Company Ltd. in 2013 to locate bins across the city centre and key district shopping centres. Siân O’Keefe, Senior Manager, Corporate Affairs at Wrigley, believes the project is a good model for others to follow.

“Encouraging behaviour change is the only long-term and sustainable solution to the problem of littered gum and we are totally committed tackling this issue”.

Another initiative aiming to promote a gum-free environment is Keep Britain Tidy’s Chewing Gum Action Group. This campaign unites local authorities, central government and the chewing gum industry to encourage responsible disposal of gum. The group’s annual promotion encourages councils to run corresponding local campaigns across the UK. In 2016, the 11 local campaigns saw a 36% average reduction of dropped gum in monitored areas.

Meanwhile, one inventive individual in London is making a virtue of an eyesore by creating miniature works of art, with chewing gum as his canvas.

Final thoughts

Chewing gum waste is not just a problem in the UK. Across the world, authorities are looking at different approaches to deal with it. As of yet, there’s no sign of the UK following the lead of Singapore in banning the sale of chewing gum. Instead, national and local governments are trying to find less authoritarian ways of tackling this modern-day blight.

The progress made by Keep Britain Tidy, Gumdrop and others in the public and private sectors is to be applauded. But, as the LGA has made clear, gum manufacturers are now being expected to do a lot more, both by switching to biodegradable gum and contributing to the cost of clearing it up.

“While awareness campaigns the industry is involved in have some value, they are not enough by themselves. The industry needs to go a lot further, faster, in tackling this issue.”

If you enjoyed this article, you may also find our other blogs on waste management of interest: